[WSBARP] Easement v. Fee Interest

[Eric Nelsen]

I think "undivided interest" implies an undivided tenant-in-common fee interest in the whole of Tract E, along with the owners of other Lots in the 1982 short plat. But the phrase by itself doesn't seem to explain completely.

>From your description it sounds like for tax purposes the County split Tract E in severalty (divided interests) rather than tenant-in-common undivided interests, with western part attached to Lot 1, and southern part attached to another lot in the short plat? But that isn't what I would expect for an "undivided interest."

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA  98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Wesley C. McMahon
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 11:16 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: [WSBARP] Easement v. Fee Interest

Question: Client owns Lot 1.  Abutting Lot 1 to the West and South is Tract E.  West of Tract E is a neighborhood park, and south of Tract E is Lot 7.  Lot 1 and Tract E were both created by a short plat in 1982.  The short plat has an arrow pointing to the western portion of Tract E that calls it a 20' gas easement.  The short plat on the side states the owner of Lot 1 "to have an undivided interest in Tract E."

The sellers to my client, who purchased Lot 1 earlier this year, were the first owners of Lot 1 since it was created.  They have since gone off the map and are unreachable.  The sellers apparently were paying property taxes on Lot 1 and the western portion of Tract E since both were created and the King County parcel viewer shows them both as being one lot.  The southern portion of Tract E appears to be a different tract, owned  The legal description shows Lot 1 of the short plat, then states along with an undivided interest in Tract E, and "an easement for access purposes over the remaining undivided interest in Tract E of said plat."

I'm not sure if the description of "undivided interest" in Tract E created an easement or a fee interest.  Or, if it did create an easement, but the owners of Lot 1 have been paying property taxes for the last 30 years and using Tract E as theirs, whether they have an adverse possession claim.  Any insight would be really helpful.  Thanks!



Wesley C. McMahon
Partner
Moultray & McMahon, PS
www.Moultray.com<http://www.moultray.com/>
11661 SE 1st Street
Suite 201
Bellevue, WA 98005
Phone: 206-777-1435
E-Mail: Wes at Moultray.com<mailto:Wes at Moultray.com>

         Trusted Advisors of
Business & Real Estate Law


**** CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING****

This email (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. 2510 - 2522. This e-mail may contain CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).  Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  Receipt by anyone other than the individual recipient is NOT a waiver of attorney-client privilege. Any violation of the ECPA is subject to the penalties stated therein. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

SPECIAL NOTICE TO CLIENT(S): If you are my client and this email is directed to you, DO NOT FORWARD to any other party, or you could be waiving the attorney-client privilege.

**** CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING****

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20181010/47bfb201/attachment.html>